> Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Like it or not, careful reviews and review checklists, while quited > > flawed in their own right, are the best tool we have. When I was on > > the IESG I had my own private review checklist; it was the only > > thing I found that worked. > I agree careful reviews are necessary. What I find surprising is your > logic, which seems to say: > IANA considerations sections in IDs are not sufficient, therefore > they are useless (or worse). I have never said or even implied that. > Is that really what you are advocating? Of course not. > What exactly is it that you > think should be done (in addition to careful reviews) that would help > reduce the odds that the careful review find issues with the IANA > instructions (or lack thereof)? Simple: The requirement that an IANA considerations section be included in RFC not containing any IANA actions needs to be dropped. I have been extremely clear ahout this. > Note that having IC sections is all about improving the odds that they > contain the Right Thing before the document is approved by the > IESG. In my mind that means: That may be the intent, but the effect is to substitute boilerplate for review, which won't improve specification quality at all. > 1) IANA reviews an (essentially) final version, to be sure what it > says is consistent with their understanding of what needs to be > carried out. But, IANA does this review during Last Call. Thus, the > IC section really needs to be complete _before_ the full IETF > review. > 2) Well, the Shepherding AD can do the "careful review" during the AD > review phase, but there is already plenty of pressure to skimp on > the AD review in order to send a document the WG says is finished > to IETF LC ASAP. I.e., to get the IETF LC started and "fix any > issues that come up later". Plus, in my experience, plenty of IC > issues are caught by ADs other than the shepherding AD. So relying > on them to catch all such issues is far from ideal. > 3) Voila, have a checklist item that alerts WGs to things they should > take steps to make sure their documents have already addressed > prior to advancing a document out of the WG. This is all very logical, but we're dealing with people here, not perfect logical systems. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf